Perceived Differences

[amolitor]

If you hang about for a while you'll learn that there are lots of people who actually cannot see color balance. They just don't notice it. There are excellent reasons for this, our visual system actually compensates for color casts so you have to train yourself to see them.

There are loads of other things people just don't notice. Things like the JPEG compression standard are built on a strong understanding of stuff people "just don't notice" in pictures.

Every one of us "just can't see" a lot of stuff that's there. The stuff we don't notice probably varies, but we all have these "blind spots"

So this leads naturally to a question: Why should be care about technical fiddly bits that people can't even see without specifically practicing?

The standard answer is that "well, they might not SEE it consciously, but at some level they'll see that the color balance is right, that the bokeh are smooth, that the tones are buttery, and they will like MY pictures more than THAT OTHER GUY'S pictures."

Is there any evidence that this is true? There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that it's NOT true: people love washed out fake vintage, they genuinely don't see why the kit-lens-fauxtographer's pictures aren't just as good as yours, they love instagram. I absolutely submit that I might well be missing a mountain of evidence the other way, but missing it I am.

 

[runnah]

I have super accurate color acuity. Chalk it up to natural abilities or years in the printing industry.

Your original point has been proven numerous times. Basic concepts like putting a dark color next to A bright color will make the darker color seem lighter and vice versa. I had a huge argument with a client about this exact thing. They swore up and down that I used the wrong Pantone color because when printed on a dark gray background the Pantone seemed too dark.

Other issues where printing on duller paper, the differences between colors on screen and on paper and various other material. Spot color vs process color is another huge battle.

 

[KenC]

The situation in photography is about the same as in any endeavor where personal taste enters into judgment. Everything from the visual arts to literature to cooking to music. There are many people who only see merit in the lowest common denominator (LCD) because that is all they're familiar with. If exposed briefly to better stuff (or more sophisticated or whatever adjective you choose), they may not appreciate it. However, most people who are educated as to the differences begin to appreciate them and prefer what those already experienced in that field like. Of course there is a lot of variation in taste even among, e.g., experienced photographers, as to which stuff they like, but relatively few people who learn about something continue to prefer the LCD (I think).

 

[Benco]

Is there any evidence that this is true? There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that it's NOT true: people love washed out fake vintage, they genuinely don't see why the kit-lens-fauxtographer's pictures aren't just as good as yours, they love instagram. I absolutely submit that I might well be missing a mountain of evidence the other way, but missing it I am.

In my experience most people like photographs for the subject rather than the quality of the photography, as long as the photo's good enough then if they like the subject they'll like the photograph, sometimes even if it's a ****ty photograph they'll still like it for the subject.

 

[Ilovemycam]

OP, don't know.

But vintage can turn a snapshot into a photograph.

 

[Designer]

Other issues where printing on duller paper, the differences between colors on screen and on paper and various other material. Spot color vs process color is another huge battle.

Not to mention the light in which it is displayed.

 

[runnah]

Not to mention the light in which it is displayed.

Oh done get me started!

I wish I had one if those serious you see at Home Depot where you can show how a color looks under different lights because no matter how you explain it people don't understand!

 

[Designer]

If you hang about for a while you'll learn that there are lots of people who actually cannot see color balance. They just don't notice it. There are excellent reasons for this, our visual system actually compensates for color casts so you have to train yourself to see them.

Yes, we read that the OP has "only viewed on (X) computer", or the audience opines that "perhaps your monitor is not calibrated". It probably is just someone's ability to see color.

So this leads naturally to a question: Why should we care about technical fiddly bits that people can't even see without specifically practicing?

I think we should all "care", because in the end, aren't we all learning something? Even the one who actually sees color quite well is learning that some others don't, and vice-versa.

 

[cynicaster]

The situation in photography is about the same as in any endeavor where personal taste enters into judgment. Everything from the visual arts to literature to cooking to music. There are many people who only see merit in the lowest common denominator (LCD) because that is all they're familiar with. If exposed briefly to better stuff (or more sophisticated or whatever adjective you choose), they may not appreciate it. However, most people who are educated as to the differences begin to appreciate them and prefer what those already experienced in that field like. Of course there is a lot of variation in taste even among, e.g., experienced photographers, as to which stuff they like, but relatively few people who learn about something continue to prefer the LCD (I think).

I agree 100% with this. So true.

A great example of this concept at work is the band Nickelback. There are those who simply cannot understand why Nickelsack draws so much ire from so many people. The reason it doesn't compute in their brains is because their view of music is so narrow and so thoroughly controlled by what radio stations and big-dollar record companies cram down their throats that they're completely oblivious to the fact that there's a great big musical world out there beyond the borders of the commercial jock-rock ghetto. Anybody who appreciates enough... cares enough... about music to do some exploration of their own to decide for themselves what is good and what isn't, knows exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Derrel]

A goodly number of people will tell you that the hamburgers at McDonald's are "the best burgers around". Or those from White Castle. Or Five Guys. Or Wendy's. You know, chain-based, commoditized fast food burgers. A lot of people are pretty happy with the hamburgers that the above places sell and serve. Other people enjoy something "different"...maybe it'd be safe to call it "better". There are people who are literally unable to differentiate between lower-quality and higher-quality items in the same product category. In many cases, so-called higher quality items may not be as inherently pleasing to people as lower-grade stuff proves to be. Compare for example a five-star restaurant's $34 to $79 dinner entrees with the $10.99 all-you-can eat dinner service menu at many American buffet restaurants. Two entirely different concepts of "good food", or "dinner".

As to photography; technical quality standards in many environments are quite low these days. An image shared and see on an iphone display is...tiny! Most cameras are up to the task for web-based photography. So are most lenses. The display environment MOST new photos are seen on is probably the world wide web; a vast, motley assortment of outdated PC's with crap monitors with faded colors, non-color aware browsers, junky old laptops, cheezy netbooks, ancient Macs, home-built gamer systems with juiced saturation and brightness, and so on.

I was watching The Doug Gordon Experience, and he asked the in-studio photographers, "Do you always color-correct your images?" Some raised hands, others did not. He continued with basically, "Why? Why do you color correct images? So they can look at them on their whacked-out PC's and cruddy notebook displays and their office computers?" Point made. The picture viewing environment today is just filled with uncertainty, but despite that uncertainty, people look more at image CONTENT than they do technical image quality. A blurred image of a game-winning touchdown is still a good picture. A blurry snapshot of a beloved child's first bike ride, snapped with a WalMart cellphone, is a treasured image to that kid's grandparents. For photography enthusiasts, technical quality is more of a 'thing' we notice, and among the higher level practitioners, and the higher-level consumers of images, there are definitely degrees of quality and worth.

 

[manaheim]

In addition to Derrels thoughts, or possibly extending upon them...

I correct my images because the results matter to me... On my screens, and ultimately in my prints. The latter being the key. When I take a photo I have a vision for that pictures appearance in my minds eye, and when I print that image I want it to look exactly like the one I edited on my pc, otherwise its not what I intended, and therefore wrong. If no one else necessarily notices or cares, meh... I do, and that's critical to me.

In addition, while certainly monitors and displays can all be pretty whacked, a great many of them are at least close enough that no one other than an obsessive photographer would notice... Just so long as the original display the image was edited on (mine) is accurate.

 

[Gavjenks]

The OP posed the question as "If most people can't tell which is more accurate, then should we bother?"

But it could also be posed as the related question "What is more accurate in the first place?"

Correct color balance usually means moving AWAY from an accurate depiction of the scene. If there is greenish lighting, then "correct color balance" adjusts for that. But a greenish tint would actually be more accurat, because that's what was really there. And even human eyes don't ever really fully adjust to compensate. You would still be aware that there was green lighting. It's not like your brain compensates so effectively that skin always looks like a perfect skintone and you don't even know anything else is possible...

So why is "correct" color balance even considered "correct" in the first place? It's neither what was actually in the scene NOR what a human would have perceived. So why are we even trying to adjust it to "proper" skin tone in the first place? It's not just an issue of whether people can tell the difference. It's not just "can people tell the difference?" It's also an issue of whether they even would/do like the difference truly if they CAN see it, isn't it?

 

[Derrel]

Good point. I seldom worry about "correct white balance". Or "correct color". People do not really want accurate color in their photos. They want something that is much broader in scope. What people want is pleasing color. Fuji knew this quite well when they released their S1,S2,S3 and S5 d-slr cameras. The color was never "accurate", but it was exceedingly PLEASING to most people. There was a time when the Fuji color palette was the hot thing in photography. That's been about a decade now though since they were on top.

I think there's a wide, wide range of color that people find acceptable, and there is some variation. Some people are very stuck in the mud, spewing out RGB values for skin on people they have never met, fussing over "true" white balance, and so on. Trying really,really,really hard to "filter out" and "neutralize" color casts caused by foliage, different times of the day, clothing, the grass, the beach, the ocean, all that stuff...it's a labor spent mostly by the numerically-obsessed measurebators.

 

[sashbar]

It is like digital music - we are not able to hear anything above 20,000Hz. It was scientifically proved. Hence the CD format which is limited to 20 -20,000 Hz. It took 20 years to realise that due to some subtle things like upper harmonics etc we can clearly "hear" or percieve the information that is well above 20,000 Hz. More than that - what we hear at the upper freq. limit affects our perception of the opposite end of the frquency range and hence the whole picture. All of a sudden we realised that with CD format we lose a lot of musically important information, such as the concert hall ambience.
I think similar things can be applied to our sight. Simply because just like our ears, our eyes are only the tool, we hear and see with our brain.

 

[supercool2]

I agree that people don't notice the quality as much as they notice the subject and composition . This why as a beginner I can get away with posting not fully/properly focused pictures as long as they are fancied up a little (see the collages in the website link in my profile) . I am still practicing,getting to knowmy camera,and learning so I know I have a lot of improvment and intend to work on improving of course.

My mom always seems overly critical of my work,because he has a really good eye for those things like white balance and color. I can't see what she is talking about when she says it looks too blue,etc.. She will say I need to fix that blue, and I say I don't see ANY blue at all ! Or have to remind her I know some things, but you have to remember I am still learning !
I have begun to suspect I may have that blindness myself. But am hoping it's just something that will come with experience as I learn and grow . I am now just starting to get into photography on a serious level , after only loving it all my life but doing nothing about it until now. For example when choosing a camera I went through three before making a final ecision because I would take the picture at 100% on my computer screen (the good computer& monitor) and could tell right away I was NOT satisfied with the quality from that canon T3i ,and it was just too easy to figure out despite the store salesman telling me it would be good enough after asking me what I waned in a camera. My mom told me to go online,read up in the forums and suggested her preferred brand (olympus) . When I tried the NIkon I knew it was the right fit. I had already been shooting with the (borrowed from her) olympus) .